Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-01218

#1

Jun 25, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by HENRY CLAUDE. (Attachments: # 1 Habeas Petition lodged pending disposition of IFP Motion, # 2 Exhibit Removed from Public view for PII, # 3 Envelope) (cel) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#2

Jun 26, 2026

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Petition located at ECF No. 1-1, and the exhibit located at ECF No. 1-2, on the docket forthwith.Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 6/26/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (drc) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#3

Jun 26, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 6/26/2026. (drc) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

Jun 26, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Jun 26, 2026

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand added. (cel)

#4

Jun 30, 2026

ATTORNEY Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Credit Card Required)

#5

Jun 30, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by David Lew on behalf of TODD BLANCHE, DAVE MARGOLIN, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE. (Lew, David) (Entered: 06/30/2026)

#6

Jul 09, 2026

SCHEDULING ORDER: Reply to Petition due on 7/27/2026. Reply due 8/03/2026. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 7/09/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (drc) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

Jul 09, 2026

Order

#8

Jul 27, 2026

RESPONSE to 4 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by TODD BLANCHE, DAVE MARGOLIN, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Summons 4) (Lew, David) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

#9

Jul 28, 2026

ORDER DENYING 4 Second Petition for Habeas Corpus. Petitioner, a native and citizen of Haiti, has been detained at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center since April 2025. ECF No. 8 at 1. In a previous petition, Claude v. Oddo et al, No. 26-cv-425-CCW (W.D. Pa. 2026) (Wiegand, J.) ("Claude I"), Petitioner argued that his detention had become unreasonably prolonged, in violation of his due process rights, and sought immediate release from custody or, in the alternative, a bond hearing before an immigration judge (IJ). The Court granted in part Petitioner's first petition on 4/1/2026, because it concluded that Petitioner was subject to discretionary detention pursuant to § 1226(a) and not mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) and therefore that he was entitled to a bond hearing. See Claude I, ECF No. 11. Petitioner's bond hearing was held on 4/8/2026, and the immigration judge denied bond based on a finding of flight risk and danger to the community. ECF No. 8 at 3. Now, in a separate Petition, Petitioner requests immediate release from custody. ECF No. 4 at 8. Petitioner asserts that his detention has become unreasonably prolonged, that the government failed to justify the necessity of his detention at the 4/8/2026 bond hearing, and that the IJ failed to consider evidence of his strong ties to the community and lack of criminal record. Id. at 7-8. Respondents contend that Petitioner's claim that his detention has become unreasonably prolonged is moot, because the Court already considered that claim in Claude I. ECF No. 8 at 4-5. Respondents further argue that Petitioner fails to show the 4/8/2026 bond hearing violated his due process rights. Id. at 5-10. First, the Court concludes that Petitioners claim that this detention has become unreasonably prolonged is not moot, because the Courts ruling in Claude I turned on the statutory authority for Petitioner's detention rather than the length of Petitioner's detention. But, turning to the merits of this claim, the Court concludes that Petitioner's detention has not become unreasonably prolonged. When considering a due process challenge to the length of detention of a noncitizen who has received a bond hearing, the Court considers the length of detention since the time of the noncitizen's most recent bond hearing. See Ndungu v. Doll, No. 4:20-CV-2268, 2021 WL 1916700, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2021). Here, Petitioner received a bond hearing approximately three and a half months ago. ECF No. 8 at 3. Three and a half months of post-bond hearing detention is not unreasonably prolonged and does not violate Petitioner's due process rights. See Borbot v. Warden of Hudson Cty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 280 (detention of approximately eighteen months following bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) does not violate due process); Flores-Lopez v. Lowe, No. 1:21-CV-1839, 2021 WL 6134453, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2021) (Conner, J.) (detention of approximately nineteen months following bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) does not violate due process.); Ndungu 2021 WL 1916700, at *5 (Because Petitioner received a bond hearing approximately one month ago, he has received all the process he is due, and he is not entitled to relief based on the length of his detention.). Regarding Petitioner's claim that the 4/8/2026 bond hearing was deficient, federal courts "lack jurisdiction to review any discretionary determinations underlying the IJ's bond decision," and may only "review whether the bond hearing was fundamentally unfair" such that it violates the detainee's due process rights. Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022); see also Quinteros v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 784 F. App'x 75, 78 (3d Cir. 2019). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has advised that a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 is "fundamentally fair," and thus satisfies due process, if three essential elements are present: (1) factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to the detainee; (2) the detainee is allowed to make arguments on his or her behalf; and (3) the IJ makes an individualized determination of the detainee's interests. Ghanem, 2022 WL 574624 at *2; see also Quinteros, 784 F. App'x at 78. Accordingly, this Court's review of the bond hearing is limited to considering whether the hearing was fundamentally fair under Ghanem. Petitioner has not provided a transcript or recording of the 4/8/2026 hearing. Thus, the Court lacks any basis to conclude that the hearing lacked the three essential elements of a "fundamentally" fair bond hearing under Ghanem. Accordingly, Petitioner, who bears the burden of demonstrating he is entitled to relief, has failed to show that the 4/8/2026 bond hearing failed to comply with due process. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 4 Second Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 7/28/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (drc) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

#10

Jul 28, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT entered consistent with the above order (ECF No. 9). Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 7/28/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (drc) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

Jul 28, 2026

Order Dismissing Case

Jul 28, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)